Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization
  • Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:30:38 -0800 (PST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
<snip>
We currently are moving the Security Team into the QA Team, where the
Security Team manager could be the QA Team Lead's assistant, thus
setting up redundancy. If other teams merge with the QA Team, they
could also be 'assistants' and add redundancy.

We can do the same with other teams, e.g.
* PR Team Lead becomes an assistant to the PL
* Web Team and Server Team (server people, we don't have an 'official
team' for this atm) would be assistant(s) to Tome Team (perhaps
renamed to reflect their managing all of our services)
* Grimoire Team moves under Sorcery (since Sorcery is what the
grimoires must adhere to)
* Grimoire Team moves under Cauldron Team (since the grimoires need to
be in a certain state for the ISOs)

One possible organization (using some of the above ideas):
Project Lead (or Council of Elders formed of all the teams)
|-> Quality Assurance Lead (PL Assistant)
|-> Grimoire Team (QA Assistant)
|-> Sorcery Team (QA Assistant)
|-> Cauldron Team (QA Assistant)
|-> Tome Lead (PL Assistant)
|-> Public Relations Team (Tome Assistant)
|-> Web Team (Tome Assistant)
|-> Server Team (Tome Assistant)
|-> Documentation Team (Tome Assistant)

That cuts us down to two teams (which is probably a gross
simplification ;)), with 2 (or more) PL assistant leads, 3 QA
assistant leads, and 4 Tome assistant leads. For the Council of Elders
idea, all the assistants to leads and the leads would be on the
Council (so about 10 people). Each team could sub-divide more if they
want (e.g. grimoire would also have subdivisions for stable-rc,
stable, and each section).

I think our main issue (as our poll[0] noted) is documentation. If we
can get our documentation (at least for the developers) updated and
finalized that might get more consistency in commits as well as giving
a clear definition of who is supposed to be doing what (with respect
to what maintaining a section means, who can edit maintained or
unmaintained sections, what bugs we need to focus on, etc.).

- -sandalle

[0] http://www.sourcemage.org/node/1453

- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD8PqAHXt9dKjv3WERAnQVAJ9oy7waI539S1Pap0FCoheS2A9mRACfabze
q3qjPFRHLr13r2lKHZnDRlU=
=TZJC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page